DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
These rejections have been withdrawn.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 14-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson et al. (“Thompson”)(US 3,734,311).
Thompson teaches a method and device for the individualization of a non-individualized product or a non-individualized product bundle comprising
(re: claim 15) an individualization apparatus for generating individualization means (fig. 6, 7 showing application device for applying individualization means/labels to a carton 60 and col. 5, ln. 1-col. 6, ln. 8 teaching labeler unit 45 mounted above an individualization unit/digital printer 76, wherein a pneumatically operated carriage assembly 105 operates between “a retracted position to receive the label from the printer, and an extended position to apply the label to the carton”) and
an application device for applying at least one of the generated individualization means on the non-individualized product or the non-individualized product bundle (Id. teaching that labeler unit includes pneumatically operated applicator);
characterized in that the device is coupled to and movable together with a handling and transporting device (fig. 1a, 1b showing picking vehicle 14 and col. 2, ln. 52-col. 4 and col. 12 teaching that picking vehicle includes a wheeled 15 and motor 16 for moving vehicle to specific location within warehouse storage racks, a picking platform 18 including a lifting device for raising or lowering said platform to pick items from a specific storage location; a processing bed for labeling said items and various conveyors 21 for transporting the picked items after processing, wherein items from the central warehousing area are intended to be transported to individual stores or outlets; fig. 2 showing labeler 45 integrated into processing bed thus the device can be regarded as coupled to and movable together a handling and transporting device) that is adapted and designed to pick up a non-individualized product or product bundle at a storage location for the purpose of shipping the non-individualized product or product bundle to a consignee of the product or product bundle, to assign the non-individualized product or product bundle to a transport means, and to transfer the non-individualized product or product bundle to the transport means (Id. teaching labeling elements configured to apply label to individual cartons and then onto a sorting conveyor, wherein a transport means is inherent in discussion of transporting items from central warehouse to specific stores/outlets; see also col. 1, ln. 8+ teaching that system is configured for warehousing items and picking and shipping items to specific retails outlets);
(re: claim 17) a receiving apparatus for consignee-specific information (fig. 4, 10 and col. 1, ln. 40-col. 2, ln. 18 teaching control elements for receiving and storing label information such as destination, order number, ordering store, or the like);
(re: claim 18) the application device comprises a pivot or swivel arm, a linearly displaceable lifting plunger and/or an applicator carrier that is movable in a freely programmable spatial path (fig. 6, 7 teaching that labeler unit includes pneumatically operated applicator 105 and a pivot arm near 146);
(re: claim 19) the individualization means are temporarily fixable to the applicator carrier by means of adhesion and are releasable from the applicator carrier (col. 5 teaching use of adhesive and temporary affixing to applicator).
(re: claims 1-5, 7-10, 12 and 14) The claimed method steps are performed in the normal operation to the system cited above (col. 1, ln. 8+ teaching that system is configured for warehousing items and picking and shipping items to specific retails outlets).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Thompson et al. (“Thompson”)(US 3,734,311) view of Aze et al. (“Aze”)(US 2017/0081067); Bernard, II et al. (“Bernard”)(US 5,273,392) and Lisso et al. (“Lisso”)(US 2020/0031578).
Thompson as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 6) wherein the non-individualized product or the non-individualized product bundle is stocked in a FIFO or LIFO warehouse;
(re: claim 13) wherein a truck or a freight car for railway transportation (goods wagon) or a cable car or a ropeway carriage or a magnetic levitation system or a ship or an airplane is used as the transport means;
(re: claim 16) the individualization means are SSCC labels;
(re: claim 20) wherein the handling and transporting device is a forklift and wherein the individualization apparatus is attached to the forklift.
Further, under an alternate interpretation, the prior art may be interpreted as not teaching (re: certain elements of 1 and 15) assign the non-individualized product or product bundle to a transport means, and to transfer the non-individualized product or product bundle to the transport means.
Aze, however, teaches that it is well-known and standard practice in the warehouse and transport arts to integrate transport means to allow shipping items directly from a warehouse (fig. 1 showing warehouse 16 with carrier truck/transport means 36; para. 39-42 teaching that warehouse with integrated packaging, labeling, shipping and transport means allows optimization of delivery process for a carrier) and to include a Serial Shipment Container Code (“SSCC”) in a label for automatic parcel identification (fig. 7 and para. 40, 81 teaching in-line printer for producing label and that label can include SSCC code comprising parcel dimensions, weigh, delivery address and routing information).
Bernard further teaches that FIFO inventory processes are well-known in the automated material handling/sorting arts and assist with optimizing the automated warehouse distribution tasks (col. 31, ln. 40-68 teaching that master controller can better manage locating and transporting of containers within warehouse facility using FIFO inventory procedures; fig. 41, 42 and col. 25 teaching that controller organizes orders into related batches that optimizes retrieval of containers and allows rapid restocking and delivery of orders in delivery trucks).
Lisso further teaches that it would be obvious to configure the lifting platform taught above with mobile forklift features to automate the lifting of heavy pallets and allow inventory restocking (fig. 1-6 showing mobile forklift 100 with pallet; para. 27-30 teaching inventory replenishment and that mobile forklift enhances picking efficiency).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., truck/transport, mobile forklift or FIFO elements) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Thompson for the reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejection set forth above. In particular, the prior art now specifically teaches a label generator and applicator coupled to and movable together in a handling and transporting device. Consequently, as reasonable interpretation of the prior art renders the claimed invention obvious, the claims stand rejected.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
------
March 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights